Rosales v. State: Time for a Change, Witness Impeachment By Use of a Prior Conviction Under Maryland Law

John Karpinski

 As a general principle, evidence doctrine bars the use of character evidence to prove that a person acted in accordance with a particular trait on a specific occasion. The federal courts and most states, including Maryland, make an exception to this general pronouncement, allowing a witness to be impeached with evidence of prior criminal convictions. This exception is among the most controversial evidence rules. In Rosales v. State, the Court of Appeals held that a conviction under the Violent Crime in Aid of Racketeering Activity statute (“VICAR”) is a proper conviction for witness impeachment under Maryland Rule 5-609. In doing so, the Court of Appeals further blurred the line of admissible convictions under Maryland Rule 5-609. The current Rule sets forth a confusing framework for trial judges to decipher which crimes qualify for impeachment. As such, the Rule is ripe for replacement. While no alternative would be flawless, implementing Federal Rule of Evidence 609, or alternatively Alabama Rule of Evidence 609 or Indiana Rule of Evidence 609, would cure many of the defects in Maryland Rule 5-609.